To get enough- there are two ways; one
is to accumulate more and more, the other is to desire less. From within these
two; only, one can find a best answer to the oil crisis situation, and that can
churn a balance between the price and demand equation in connection to the OPEC
and non OPEC supply. Now one does not need to be a studious sort to surmise
which "way" one should really prefer!

Oil prices every where in the world has
been narrowly coupled with US policies more than OPEC boasts it has to do with.
An illustrious joke in this regard goes like this- the difference between OPEC
and Texas Railroad Commission is the latter one has Texas Rangers. Indicating;
clearly who the authority on this subject is.

Where it is true for most things it
holds true for a resource as significant as oil as well. And the truth is;
"America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", bitter but
that's usually how most truths taste. Such full-bodied is the reputation of
America as a single entity to control the oil scenario all over, that countries
who owns the reserves in most cases have to fulcrum their entire operations on
US policies. These operations obviously include from daily barrel productions to
daily supply and intermittent price swings.

What has made US such a strong
contender over the years is its understanding of crude oil importance in an
overall future economy even before countries had completely explored its
reserves and this could be traced back to Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. Such is
the case that foreign policies hostile or friendly have been molded accordingly.
To sustain the argument Iraq is a prime example. Iran might be next. God only
knows that these might have been staged as back as the times of the above stated
presidents.

Oil has been a reckoning force for
economies, just a mere thought of reserves being exhausted sends shivers down
the spine. Historic demand and supply argument still stands robust in this case
and that is in order to comfort high demand, price bars should be raised and so
supply automatically comes to terms. But then a question arises here as well- Is
Mr. Adam Smith only euphemizing for America setting prices for the rest of the
world, for commodities such as crude oil in it self? Or is there any other truth
to the statement above.

Oil has been one of the most valuable
energy resources the world has ever seen. And for few people and the contentions
that they have held over the years, it has been the reason for most recent wars
and a resource which is more valuable than anything to sustain economies.
Pakistan politics and oil are also two contrasting yet allied features; it is
with immense care that one needs to put in while writing or even discussing any
lengths on these topics. We as a nation are investing huge sums in the
infrastructural development that include roads and flyovers. These are being
elongated in both width and breadth somewhat trying to emulate the U.A.E. way of
handling traffic, but having said this, to raise oil prices is like mocking the
public, who already are toiling hard to reach destinations. Not to mention the
prices of all the other basic commodities that have gone up sky rocketing.

Tightening the screws so hard that
people even stop to continue and carry the already nerve-racking cliché of
"hand to mouth".

The raise in oil prices have been seen
as another tyrannical decision, which has no concrete justification and could
have been avoided if not completely than at least for some more period of time,
especially in the face of a severe political turmoil. To further sustain the
argument the taxes that we are already paying do not seem to attract sufficient
amenities from the Government side. It is difficult to believe in the
Governments inflexibility to adjust price from within the levy that they already
charge with oil, all agreed that there was some sort of pressure from the
international barrel pricing that the Government was contending with, all while
along.

A mind ought to contemplate the think
tank of a well stationed Government. Is it just another "guerilla
tactics" from the pocket of politics where the hands of blame games are
being ameliorated to sabotage the newly elected government? With the basic
commodity prices gone up and with petrol also hiking to new horizons, the idea
might be at play. But one thing that even the mastermind behind all this has to
comprehend and that is people though not in masses are not very dense they do
understand, they too reflect and are as skeptical as any politicians if not
better. If the blame game like this is being played then one has to think on
grounds ñ and that is who was in charge of the Government for the last ten
years or so. A common lay man might not seem to pick up at first but he will
eventually understand that surely this is a morose attempt on the newly elected
Government by a well stationed one who still have not given up the hope of
running the office whole and sole- an addiction worse than any drug as the
latter eradicates only the user but the former exterminates the entire nation.

No matter how much one involves in the
verbosity of the argument the fact remains, a trap is set and it's just a matter
for the newly elected government not only to realize but to do something
concrete about it.

Crisis can have both positive and
negative characteristics. They can represent a threat to the status quo but at
the same time can be seen as a symptom that something is wrong. They thus
represent an opportunity to correct an imbalance and move onto a new level. Thus
the scenario faced by the newly elected Government is similar; they can come out
as champions if they can resolve these basic issues for the public.

We should hope to learn from our
mistakes other wise it might get so late that the damage becomes irremediable.
The new Government has no time to think it should act fast and prioritize issues
faster than the time they took, just to elect a mere prime minister, leaving
such issues unattended for late will eventually initiate a receding timeline of
already limited office days.